Subject:
|
Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 14 May 2002 17:16:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
798 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> There might not be an obviously *stated* implication, but an *inherent*
> implication--"Those that don't have money, don't get"
>
> I am charging money for the services I render, and if you cannot afford to
> pay, you don't get my services. It's *in* the system, it's an axiom, it's a
> base rule. Better vs. worse, rich vs. poor, whatever--it's a 2 tier system,
> with the inherent implication that the poor have to go to a charity hospital
> for lifes necessities, but what kind of standard is that?
Again, you're characterizing the system to portray it as unfair, but it's
not a fair characterization. The fact that it's a 2-tier system is actually
irrelevant, since it would be that way in any case. If health care is
privatized, and if Person X can't afford top notch care, then he's got to
settle for whatever he can get, and too bad for him. However, if my taxes
help pay for the public health care, but if I never ever use that system,
then I'm the poor sap who's been abused by the system, and too bad for me.
There will be insiders and outsiders for any system.
Even your public health care system has inherent flaws: I'm on good,
personal terms with Doctor X, so he recommends a good specialist who can
treat my illness efficiently; or I'm not on personal terms with Doctor X, so
he recommends a mediocre specialist whom he owes a favor, who may or may not
treat my illness as efficiently. Obviously I'm not saying that this sort of
caricature is the norm, but the system itself is no more inherently proof
against "insiderism" than capitalism.
> If a chain is as strong as its weakest link, the capitalist system fosters
> lots of weak links. It also fosters big thick strong links, but the chain
> will still break at its weakest link--I don't care how many millionaires and
> multi millionaires are in the equation--look where it's deficient.
Actually, a chain isn't as strong as it's weakest link, unless the chain
only attaches at two points, and only if those two points are on opposing
sides of the weak link. To if a chain has 10 links, and link 7 is weak,
there's no problem chaining Ship A to Ship B, as long as we use links 1 and
6 to do it. Similarly, if the chain attaches in a bunch of places, than
only the section containing the weak link will be compromised.
I'm not being pedantically literal here; I'm extending your metaphor.
Capitalism isn't a simple binary "us-vs-them" system; it's a network of
interrelations between various subsets of the system and is therefore not
prone to simple "one-weakest-link" characterization.
> Capitalism is not a Just system. At best, it ignores the poor.
At best it ensures that individuals working within the system have the
opportunity to achieve solvency and security. At worst, it requires people
to accept that they are only entitled to goods and services that they are,
within the particular capitalist system, able to afford. I'm not applying a
value judgment to either extreme--I'm simply trying to summarize the system
in terms not dependent on "better-and-worse" or "right-and-wrong."
Moreover, I'm *absolutely* not a capitalist stooge, and I'm greatly in favor
of public funding for a whole range of programs. I'm so strongly
anti-corporation, in fact, that I can almost hear Larry laughing as he reads
my defense of capitalism. I just don't think it's reasonable to criticize a
system for shortcomings not actually inherent, and certainly not unique, to
that system.
> > And if Canada's public systems are so great, why did Neil Peart prattle on
> > about all that Objectivist silliness? 8^)
>
> I'm up on alotta things but I missed this reference.
Just a nod to Rush's odd exploration of Ayn Rand's scribblings (as in
Farewell to Kings, among others...)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant
|
| (...) I don't see being "anti-corporation" and "anti-capitalism" as at all the same thing, BTW. If the corporations we are talking about are the sort of crony driven parasitic influence purchasers as ADM, (or US Steel) for example, I am about as (...) (22 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Dave's Anti-American Rant
|
| (...) When it comes to having Doc Martens vs no-name sneakers, or an SUV vs S.P.O.C., or veal vs pork chops, that's to the wealth of the individual. I could care less if my fellow human has the whereforall to afford the 54 inch screen TV or the (...) (22 years ago, 14-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
